A bit disappointed

[Skaarphy]

Just bought the game today, started on the first campaign, and all went well and great and I loved it until I beat the wielder at the end of chapter one. I'm probably in a tiny minority in this but seeing that instead of taking over the town that he had occupied and starting to develop it I got booted back to the campaign menu sucked much of the fun I had with the game so far right of me.

Here's the thing: I get to capture a gold mine right from the get-go, and two stone mines plus various resources over the next hour or so. And I get introduced to the combat and exploration mechanics, so naturally I expected town development to be the next item on the list, so to speak. It would have made sense from a gameplay perspective, and it would have made sense from a narrative perspective. Not only would it have been the logical conclusion to everything that happened so far. it would have been a reaping-the-rewards kind of moment. I did well, now I get to build my city.

Nope. Not only did that not happen, a narrative rift then opened up between the first and the second chapter. I'm not where I was just a moment ago, I don't have the troops I had just a moment ago, I don't have the resources I had just a moment ago, and I don't have the same goals I had just a moment ago. I kind of do, but I really don't. The story went on without me for a while. This is gamey, as far as I'm concerned. It gives me the feeling that nothing I do ultimately matters, that no decisions are of consequence. That I can do no wrong. That there are no real stakes because no matter what I do, if I can somehow eke out a victory the mighty reset button in the sky will do its thing and I get timewarped to the next piecemeal thing the devs have in store for me.

It's the reason why I never really got into the campaigns in HOMM 3 and played the skirmish maps instead. And they're doing it here too! Damn it, really, what a shame.
And it wouldn't have been so bad if I hadn't fallen in love with the game 5 minutes in.
Skirmish maps it is, then. Shame, really.

[Zymeth]

As a person who rarely plays campaigns in strategy games, I really wish they weren't just a series of scenarios in most cases. In Battle for Middlearth it was possible to transision units along with their experience. They were all visible on the map. In battle realms there were simple scenario choosing, which I don't remember if infulenced narration later. In Sacrifice choosing a scenario was very important for the gameplay and to relations development.

It's a shame such old games does campaigns so much better.

[sandman25dcsss]

Just don't play campaigns like I do with basically every game

[sandman25dcsss]

Originally posted by Zymeth:

As a person who rarely plays campaigns in strategy games, I really wish they weren't just a series of scenarios in most cases. In Battle for Middlearth it was possible to transision units along with their experience. They were all visible on the map. In battle realms there were simple scenario choosing, which I don't remember if infulenced narration later. In Sacrifice choosing a scenario was very important for the gameplay and to relations development.

It's a shame such old games does campaigns so much better.

There is intrinsic problem here too: balance is created with assumption that you have some experienced units/heroes. If you lose them, you are screwed. Town development doesn't matter as much. New heroes don't matter that much. Basically you are kind of still playing previous scenario, just on a different floor.

[Morphic]

Originally posted by sandman25dcsss:

There is intrinsic problem here too: balance is created with assumption that you have some experienced units/heroes. If you lose them, you are screwed. Town development doesn't matter as much. New heroes don't matter that much. Basically you are kind of still playing previous scenario, just on a different floor.

Yeah, also keep in mind your Wielder often carries over whatever EXP/Skills you had too so you do have something that persists throughout the "levels".

That said, having "everything" carry over between missions/levels is not always a good thing. As you said, the game is balanced around the idea your Wielder is being carried over. So if you made poor choices or are underleveled, it's going to make the next mission even harder.

The Homeworld Series is a great example of this problem. If you do really bad or are spending your resources willy nilly while losing some of your Veteran units on a mission ... you basically cannot recover no matter what. Then it tends to create a downward spiral where everything is getting exponentially harder. (The reverse is true as well, you can easily snowball and breeze through later missions)

Though, I will agree on the Narrative aspect being rather jarring in between missions. IMO, Heroes of Might and Magic usually did it better because you had a post mission recap of what just happened and the description/details for the next mission covered how/why you are there now. Granted, Songs of Conquest has a literal bard song that plays trying to do the same thing but I don't think it is as good.

[sandman25dcsss]

Originally posted by Morphic:

Yeah, also keep in mind your Wielder often carries over whatever EXP/Skills you had too so you do have something that persists throughout the "levels".

That said, having "everything" carry over between missions/levels is not always a good thing. As you said, the game is balanced around the idea your Wielder is being carried over. So if you made poor choices or are underleveled, it's going to make the next mission even harder.

The Homeworld Series is a great example of this problem. If you do really bad or are spending your resources willy nilly while losing some of your Veteran units on a mission ... you basically cannot recover no matter what. Then it tends to create a downward spiral where everything is getting exponentially harder. (The reverse is true as well, you can easily snowball and breeze through later missions)

Though, I will agree on the Narrative aspect being rather jarring in between missions. IMO, Heroes of Might and Magic usually did it better because you had a post mission recap of what just happened and the description/details for the next mission covered how/why you are there now. Granted, Songs of Conquest has a literal bard song that plays trying to do the same thing but I don't think it is as good.

Yes, and those are not all problems. Other common campaign problems are
1) reaching XP cap too early in scenario so player feels like wasting XP
2) punishing player for winning scenario before reaching XP cap
3) researching every corner of the map before finally killing enemy to make sure all items are found (applies in case heroes transfer items to next scenario)
4) turn limit (or functional turn limit where enemy starts with much more cities and player is expected to rush using their heroes and starting units)
5) personally I like to play on equal terms with AI (and giving AI some bonus if I become good at the game) as then I can see how good I am at the game

[Morphic]

Originally posted by sandman25dcsss:

Yes, and those are not all problems. Other common campaign problems are

Well, yeah. I was just rattling off the most prominent ones but there is a lot more and it's easy to go back and forth with the pros and cons of them.

Personally, I don't mind it too much. Campaign wise my only complaint is that it doesn't feel long enough nor does it have enough variety for me. There's really only one way to play them and that's it.

Overall game wise, my only gripes are the AI (which is being improved) and some balance here and there. (Like Towers being, IMO, pointless)

[sandman25dcsss]

Originally posted by Morphic:

Well, yeah. I was just rattling off the most prominent ones but there is a lot more and it's easy to go back and forth with the pros and cons of them.

Personally, I don't mind it too much. Campaign wise my only complaint is that it doesn't feel long enough nor does it have enough variety for me. There's really only one way to play them and that's it.

Overall game wise, my only gripes are the AI (which is being improved) and some balance here and there. (Like Towers being, IMO, pointless)

I tried campaign here while waiting for devs to make AI better on skirmish maps and ran into yet another issue: I didn't know level cap for scenarios so I selected some good in long term skills (no, not tutor) which resulted in rather weak leader being unable to win second scenario and I have no desire to replay the whole scenario.